# Blonde, come on down, explain yourself if you can! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 13, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056 "2004-03-13T07:40:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/41 "2004-03-14T07:40:18Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > **Garfield226** Glad to see that you’ve either taken a good anti-histamine, or aren’t allergic to hay. :rolleyes: Yourself. Don’t you dare insinuate that I’m against Gay marriage. I think it should be legal, if it’s legal for heterosexual couples. You’re just throwing up a smoke screen for want of any better debating material. I’m not even the one that first hinted at such a thought in the first thread. Go on, read it all and you’ll see. I posted that I agreed with them, and found the implications disturbing or some such. It’s on the first page I believe. I was not ascribing that statement on gay marriage to your views, I was showing why your reasoning is faulty, using an example which I hoped would be blatantly obvious to you. I apologize for not being more clear. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Unless you can back up your claim that if legislation to mandate C-sections WILL DEFINITELY RESULT IN legislation to mandate other surgery, your argument is a slippery slope, and therefore invalid, exactly the same as if someone were to argue that if gay marriage is allowed, then polygamy and marriage to children and animals WILL DEFINITELY be allowed too. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/42 "2004-03-14T07:42:11Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > **Q.E.D.** Here’s a thought, if it’s not a right protected by the Constitution, why are “DNR” forms in existence, legal, and protected in the courts? Here’s a few [links](http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/gatheringplace/rights.html) that also back up what I am saying. The previous link is from [this site.](http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/gatheringplace/menu.html) Oh yeah, THERE are some good, objective links. :rolleyes: The problem comes around when you try to define when “personhood”. When does an unborn child become a person? I don’t know. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/43 "2004-03-14T07:45:11Z")
Here’s another thing that backs up my point of contention. (Sorry it’s PDF) [Sample Living Will](http://public.findlaw.com/life_events/forms/le23_9_1.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/44 "2004-03-14T07:46:31Z")
[This](http://public.findlaw.com/estate_planning/newcontent/willsestates/chp12.html?newcontent/ca) page also touches on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/45 "2004-03-14T07:52:35Z")
I’m not arguing the legality of living wills, though, am I? So, why are you? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/46 "2004-03-14T07:53:05Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > Secondly, you have a right to your opinion, as do **Blonde** and **Ale**. However, I too, have a right to an opinion, and a right to expect that my rights as set forth by the Constitution won’t be trampled by someone else taking actions based on their opinions. Please remind me who’s trampling on the Constitution. Is it the person that’s exercising their right to express a different viewpoint, or the person saying that anyone expressing a different viewpoint should leave the country? Get the fuck over yourself, **Zabali**. If the Bill of Rights is a test for who’s allowed to live in this country, then maybe you should go back to the 1st Amendment. > [@Zabali](#): > > If a person has the right to refuse medical treatment to save their life (pregnant or not) when they have been in a car wreck, based on the creed they follow, than they have the right to refuse medical treatment in any other case too. See? You’re wrong. A person has the right to refuse medical treatment for themselves, but the law allows you to exercise your own rights only to the extent they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights. For example, you’re allowed to repeat your small-minded arguments and calls for **Blonde** and **Ale** to leave the country, but you’re not allowed to committ slander because that would be infringing on _their_ rights. Similarly, a Christian Scientist family can refuse medical treatment for their children (in the exercise of their right to freedom of religion), but if the parents refuse lifesaving medical treatment for their children, the state can preempt the parents’ right and forcibly give the children medical treatment to save their lives. I agree that the issues are not simple, but we’re talking here about a woman that was in her 9th month of pregnancy. In the 9th month of pregnancy, the child could have survived outside the womb. And here’s the thing that you seem to be missing: the law says that a woman has a right to control her body and have an abortion _up to the point that the baby is viable_, and then the woman’s rights diminish and the baby’s increase. So Constitutional law seems to support the state’s ability to protect the rights of a fully viable, unborn child. [The following 2 examples are stated simply to show why I hate slippery slope arguments like you’ve made above – because the slope slides both ways.] Along those same lines, there’s a murder case out in California that you might have heard of – Laci and Scott Peterson. Hypothetically speaking, if a husband doesn’t want to have children, so he punches his 9 months pregnant wife in the stomach until she miscarries, are you suggesting that the state can only prosecute him for punching the wife, despite the fact that his intent was to kill the unborn child? And I guess the state should be helpless to stop a woman from getting pregnant, waiting until the 9th month of her pregnancy, and then inducing a miscarriage, so that she can sell the childrens’ organs for drug money. [See how silly those examples are? We’re not talking about a woman being prosecuted for refusing to starve herself. We’re not talking about a mother who believed that her children would be fine. We’re not talking about a woman that was scared that she might die from the procedure. We’re talking about a woman that would rather have let her children die in her womb than have a scar on her belly.] I’m a little uncomfortable with prosecuting this woman for murder, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/47 "2004-03-14T07:55:09Z")
Ah, but you see, in order for living wills and DNR forms to be legal, it must be legal for a person to refuse medical treatment. That is why I brought them up. If you don’t argue their legality, then where does your arguement lie? I’m still searching for the part of the Constitution and it’s Amendments that was used to make these laws, so far it seems to be the 14th, but I’m still researching. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/48 "2004-03-14T07:57:17Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I agree that the issues are not simple, but we’re talking here about a woman that was in her 9th month of pregnancy. In the 9th month of pregnancy, the child could have survived outside the womb. And here’s the thing that you seem to be missing: the law says that a woman has a right to control her body and have an abortion _up to the point that the baby is viable_, and then the woman’s rights diminish and the baby’s increase. So Constitutional law seems to support the state’s ability to protect the rights of a fully viable, unborn child. Thank you. _This_ was precisely the point I was raising. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/49 "2004-03-14T08:15:52Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > I’m still searching for the part of the Constitution and it’s Amendments that was used to make these laws, so far it seems to be the 14th, but I’m still researching. It stems from a couple of sources: 1. a common-law (i.e., court-made law) right to informed consent; 2. a constitutional right to privacy; 3. an individual’s liberty interests from the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution; and 4. other state law sources and US Constitutional “penumbras.” For more on informed consent and the right to refuse medical treatment, see the US Supreme Court case of [Cruzan v. Missouri Dep’t of Health](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZO.html). ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/50 "2004-03-14T08:22:49Z")
Did you miss the final paragraph of my OP here **Age Quod Agis**? I stated how I felt, that being that as far as I was concerned, people who stated differing beliefs are ok, people who have different practices are ok, however, when people start taking actions that I perceive will threaten my Constitutional rights, than I don’t think they should even bother staying in a country whose laws they so obviously disagree with. I also indicated that it was a “knee jerk reaction” of which, you amply demonstrated in your post that you are capable of having too. I did state, that I will continue to defend these people’s rights to hold such opinions, even though they are repellant to me. From what I’ve read so far, (though I’ve not found any specific cases yet) the right to refuse medical treatment is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution at the very least. I’m not the only person who posts on these boards, that feels if the right to turn down a surgery by a pregnant woman is taken away, it leaves everyone’s rights to “turn down surgerys to save the life of another” open to erosion. On preview, I’ve also seen the 4th Amendment mentioned **Age Quod Agis**. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/51 "2004-03-14T08:30:14Z")
Another thought, the precedent opposing your logic has probably already happened **Age Quod Agis** and **Q.E.D.** in that as I’ve said before, people are allowed to refuse medical treatments (even if it means their death) based on the Creed they follow. Do you really think that this has not been used in a case that involved a heavily pregnant woman? I don’t. I think it’s probably already happened. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/52 "2004-03-14T08:46:49Z")
The huge, massive difference between someone refusing medical treatment for their child, and refusing medical treatment for their unborn child, is that in the later case, the treatment is actually applied to the parent. Birth should be allowed to run it’s natural course if the parent wishes. A C-section is an unnatural medical procedure which is absolutely fantastic in that it can save lives. However, I find it abhorent to think that someone could be forced to do it without their consent or face fucking MURDER charges! I’m really very disheartened and deeply concerned that a lot of people on this board can’t see that. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/53 "2004-03-14T08:47:15Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > Did you miss the final paragraph of my OP here **Age Quod Agis**? I stated how I felt, that being that as far as I was concerned, people who stated differing beliefs are ok, people who have different practices are ok, however, when people start taking actions that I perceive will threaten my Constitutional rights, than I don’t think they should even bother staying in a country whose laws they so obviously disagree with. But that’s the point! It’s far from obvious what the law says! Are we allowed to disagree with you when the law isn’t clear? And even if the law was absolutely clear, you’re saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to argue that the law should be changed? Should people arguing for racial integration been forced to leave the country because they so obviously disagreed with the law? Should people now arguing that the Patriotic Act is unconstitutional be forced to leave the country because they disagree with what’s obviously the law? The 1st Amendment says no. You say yes. . . . Hmmm, I think I’ll go with Madison and Jefferson and the gang. > [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > I did state, that I will continue to defend these people’s rights to hold such opinions, even though they are repellant to me. You silly ninny. How are you defending their right to disagree with you, or to hold opinions counter to your own, if you’re telling them they should leave the country? In fact, you’re not even respecting their right to disagree with you, let alone defending it. Quit spouting empty platitudes and show me. Defend their right to disagree with you. Heck, I’ll be satisfied if you can even explain to me how you’re defending their right to disagree with you _in this thread_. > [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > I’m not the only person who posts on these boards, that feels if the right to turn down a surgery by a pregnant woman is taken away, it leaves everyone’s rights to “turn down surgerys to save the life of another” open to erosion. There are also a number of people that disagree with you. (Although if you had your way, those people would apparently have been shipped off the continent a long time ago.) Who cares how many people are making the argument? Make the argument and we’ll judge it on its merits, not on how many people are making the argument. The truth shouldn’t be up for vote. ---
**Author:** ![Chotii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Chotii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chotii)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/54 "2004-03-14T09:00:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Lastly, As far as I can tell no one is forcing these women to have intercourse. In my opinion you give up some rights by having sex becuase in essence you are inviting a baby into your body. In my opinion you have given up the right to refuse a proceedure that will save the life of your baby because you don’t desire a scar. Please note: The _nurse_ at one of the hospitals _alleges_ that the woman in question stated she didn’t want a cesarean because she didn’t want a scar. The reality is, none of us were there, none of us know what was actually said, and much less do we know what went through the woman’s mind. We don’t know what her previous experiences with cesareans were like (and apparently she had at least one such surgery previously). All we do know is, there were complications, she went to several hospitals trying to get second opinion (maybe hoping for a different opinion?), she signed herself out AMA, she refused the surgery at the time. She later had the surgery, but it was too late for one of her twins. Clearly, “I don’t want a scar” is a petty, selfish, and solipsistic reason to put a helpless infant’s life at stake. However, a great many doctors “recommend” cesareans for a great many reasons, some of them not even genuinely medical, and for all any of us know, this woman had been railroaded once or even twice into surgery for what she later learned were false, spurious or even lazy reasons. We don’t know what her REAL reasons were. So continuing to bring up this straw-man, a quote from a nurse who may have herself been mis-quoted or soundbited…doesn’t really do your argument any favors. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/55 "2004-03-14T09:04:15Z")
**Age Quod Agis** Your problem, is that you are taking a knee jerk reaction, made in an outraged state, to be literal truth as to what I think these people should do. See? I was trying to tell them how much I disagreed with their thoughts, how outraged I was. How I didn’t understand why they continued to stay citizens in this country, if they disagreed so much with the Constitution, as it’s been put to practice. If you want my (only figurative, not literal, and very emotional) feelings on this issue, than yes, people who trample the Constitution SHOULD be shipped out of the country. (Note: I don’t say that people who only WANT to do so should go, or who’s opinions don’t mesh perfectly with the it either, only those who take action. I will not always be able to keep from speculating “aloud” about why a person is staying in this country that they disagree with so much.) However, they have as much right to be in this country as I do, I know this and won’t try to change it, and I even hint that I know it, by my final sentences of my OP here. I feel I’ve “proved” myself enough here. If you still don’t get it, I pity you. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/56 "2004-03-14T09:12:27Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > Do you really think that this has not been used in a case that involved a heavily pregnant woman? I don’t. I think it’s probably already happened. Because the state is prosecuting this woman, it seems more likely that if this case has already been decided before, that it was decided against the rights of the pregnant woman. I think it hasn’t happened. But since you feel confident it has, please find that case and point us to it. If you can’t find a case, then please shut up about it. You can’t rely on a non-existent or hypothetical case for support. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/57 "2004-03-14T09:15:06Z")
Or, the law got made, and no case has come up so it can be challenged yet. That, also might be true. You do need an application of the law in order to challenge, and strike down a law, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/58 "2004-03-14T09:18:01Z")
> [@1920s Style Death Ray](#): > > The huge, massive difference between someone refusing medical treatment for their child, and refusing medical treatment for their unborn child, is that in the later case, the treatment is actually applied to the parent. A fair point. But the Statist in me thinks that a parent (or an expectant mother) should have her rights considered in light of the rights and interests of the (wholly viable) child. The apocalyptic visions of organ donation and things are _waaaay_ down the slippery slope. I don’t think a _de minimus_ invasion of the mother’s rights is uncalled for in light of the fact that we’re talking about saving the child’s life. Sure, it would be different if we were forcing the mom to undergo painful electroshock therapy to increase the child’s chances of growing over 6 feet tall, or even if we were forcing the mom to give up a kidney to save her kid’s life. But we’re talking about the mom enduring a scar so that the baby can live. I think any reasonable parent would do that, and I don’t have a problem with the state doing that in this case. > [@1920s Style Death Ray](#): > > Birth should be allowed to run it’s natural course if the parent wishes. A C-section is an unnatural medical procedure which is absolutely fantastic in that it can save lives. However, I find it abhorent to think that someone could be forced to do it without their consent or face fucking MURDER charges! This argument really resonates with my libertarian side. People die all the time, and sometimes children die from their mother’s neglect. We don’t usually prosecute neglectful mothers for murder. We should let mothers decide what’s best for themselves and their children. But when the mother makes wholly irrational decisions that are directly against the interests of their children, then we take away the parents’ rights. And I have no problem with that. Nor do I think you have a problem with that. Thus, the only difference is when the decision effects the mother directly in manner that’s not strictly related to her emotion (i.e., she doesn’t want to give up the child, despite the fact that it’s clearly in the child’s best interests). I hope this isn’t an unfair question, but is _any_ burden on the mother too great? What if she were merely forced to take an aspirin? Would that be too great? Please understand I’m not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I’m just wondering where your boundaries lie. > [@1920s Style Death Ray](#): > > I’m really very disheartened and deeply concerned that a lot of people on this board can’t see that. Save the sanctimonious BS, please. I’m sure there are many people that are disheartened and deeply concerned with your apparent inability to see the other side of the argument, too. Or were you unaware that a child was smothered so the mom could avoid the discomfort of a scar? ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/59 "2004-03-14T09:18:38Z")
BTW, this is the pit, it’s the place you go to express outrage, and use hyperbole. I have a right to express my outrage at an opinion expressed here, using hyperbole. I also, don’t have to provide cites here for everything. The topic of this OP, is a sentiment that I found outrageous. I linked the thread in which it occurred, if you wish to debate the topic which the pitted sentiments touched, go to that thread, and post. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2004, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056/60 "2004-03-14T09:22:45Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > **Age Quod Agis** Your problem, is that you are taking a knee jerk reaction, made in an outraged state, to be literal truth as to what I think these people should do. See? I was trying to tell them how much I disagreed with their thoughts, how outraged I was. How I didn’t understand why they continued to stay citizens in this country, if they disagreed so much with the Constitution, as it’s been put to practice. No, the problem is that you made a knee jerk reaction in an outraged state and expected no one to call you on it. If you don’t want people to respond to your knee jerk, emotional reactions, then don’t make them. Plus, you keep talking about what “the Constitution, as it’s been put to practice” says, but you haven’t provided any support for your interpretation of the Constitution. I’ve pointed out that the Constitution, as it’s been put to practice, does not necessarily agree with your interpretation. Unless you have some evidence that you haven’t presented here, you can’t label the opinions of others as anti-Constitution. > [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > I feel I’ve “proved” myself enough here. If you still don’t get it, I pity you. And if you’re dim enough to think that anyone that disagrees with you is worthy of your pity, then you’re an asshole. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blonde-come-on-down-explain-yourself-if-you-can/234056.md?page=4)